Jennie Mortimer-Hampson

Preliminary Matters

Documents for the substantive hearing

1. At the outset of the hearing, the Panel Chair confirmed that the Panel had been provided with the following documentation:

• Bundle for substantive hearing – 110 pages;

• Supplementary bundle – 15 pages;

• Registrant’s character reference- 1 page;

• Registrant’s reflective piece– 1 page;

• Notice to admit facts– 3 pages; and

• Case summary – 6 pages.

Proceeding in private

2. Mr Brady, on behalf of the HCPC, raised that the Registrant wished to make an application that this hearing should be heard partially in private under Rule 10(1)(a) of the Health and Care Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003 (‘the Rules’), which provides that “proceedings shall be held in public unless the Committee is satisfied that, in the interests of justice or for the protection of the private life of the health professional … the public should be excluded from all or part of the hearing”.

3. Mr Brady noted that the Registrant had stated during the preliminary meeting that there would be references made to her family, which formed part of her private life. Mr Brady noted that the Registrant had expressed a wish to keep these matters private.

4. The Registrant agreed with what had been stated by Mr Brady and asked that the hearing be conducted partly in private. She requested that any reference made to her family be dealt with in private.

5. The Panel heard and accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, who referred the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note entitled “Conducting Hearings in Private”.

6. The Panel bore in mind that, as a starting point, hearings should be conducted in public session. However, having regard to the nature of the case, the Panel considered that holding the hearing partially in private would protect the Registrant’s private life. As such, the Panel considered that parts of the hearing relating to the Registrant’s family should be dealt with in private. In making this decision the Panel considered that this was in the interest of the Registrant and served the purpose of protecting her private life and the private life of her family.

7. In its written determination, the Panel did not refer in detail to any matters of the Registrant’s private life. Accordingly, there was no requirement to produce a separate private decision.

Admissions

8. At the outset of the hearing, the Registrant admitted factual Particular 3. On the basis of the Registrant’s formal admission to Particular 3, the Panel found Particular 3 of the Allegation proved.

Background

9. At the material time, the Registrant was regulated by the HCPC as a Paramedic.

10. Between 2 November 2020 and 1 December 2022, the Registrant was employed as a Lecturer at the University of Gloucestershire (‘the University’). It is understood that the Registrant was required to undertake a Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice (‘PGCAP’) through an Academic Practice Apprenticeship. As part of her postgraduate studies, the Registrant was required to submit several teaching observations whereby academic staff would observe the Registrant’s teaching sessions and provide written feedback.

11. On or around 26 May 2022, it is alleged that the Registrant submitted a portfolio for module PD7016. The portfolio included:

• A teaching observation, undated, which stated that Colleague 1 had observed a session led by the Registrant titled “Human Factors” for Module PS5003; and

• A teaching observation dated 10 January 2022, which stated that Colleague A had observed a session led by the Registrant.

12. Colleague 1 contacted Colleague A with respect to the authenticity of the teaching observation form dated 10 January 2022. Colleague A advised Colleague 1 that, although she had discussed observing a module with the Registrant, this did not occur, and she did not write the teaching observation that was submitted by the Registrant. Subsequently concerns were raised with the University about the authenticity of the teaching observation, dated 10 January 2022, that the Registrant submitted.

13. On 14 October 2022, the Registrant was suspended from her employment pending an investigation into the concerns raised. On 26 October 2022, the Registrant was advised that the University had withdrawn her enrolment in the PGCAP. On 7 December 2022, the University accepted the Registrant’s notice of resignation taking effect on 1 December 2022. The University also advised that they were required to notify the HCPC of the investigation.

14. On 16 December 2022, the HCPC received a referral from the University about the Registrant’s conduct.

15. Mr Brady, on behalf of the HCPC, called the following witnesses to give evidence:

• Colleague A – Associate Professor of Health, Social Care, and Education, who was an academic colleague of the Registrant;

• FC, Deputy Head of School Creative Plus, who investigated this matter.

Colleague A

16. Colleague A took the Oath and adopted her witness statement as her evidence-in-chief. Her evidence, taken from her statement and live testimony, was as follows.

17. Colleague A confirmed that she was an Associate Professor of Health, Social Care, and Education. She was asked about the Moodle Virtual Learning Environment (Moodle) and noted that this was the online system where students submitted assessments. It contained activities and information. Colleague A explained that the submission element was widely used, as it was the primary method for submitting assessments in taught academic programmes.

18. Colleague A described the online system, noting that it had different areas for module units and elements of learning within the site. She stated that the platform had numerous resources for students, including a built-in assessment section.

19. Colleague A explained that, for postgraduate students that she teaches, Moodle displays separate tiles: one containing general information and timetables, another linking to library resources, and an assessment area where students submit their work. She also mentioned a tile labelled Turn-It-In, where students could check their work for plagiarism against published materials.

20. Colleague A stated that the assessment area was used to submit assessments. She stated that she occasionally viewed the Moodle site used by the Registrant as part of her PGCAP. Colleague A noted that she had some knowledge of the course and the Moodle site areas because she was associated with the course and had previously observed teaching. However, Colleague A could not confirm what the tiles on the Moodle site looked like in 2022, as she stated this would depend on its setup.

21. When questioned by the Registrant, Colleague A confirmed that the work submitted by the Registrant would not have gone through Turn-It-In. She was asked about the unsigned lesson plan and confirmed that it was not signed. Regarding the documentation submitted by the Registrant, Colleague A stated that she had only seen the observer’s comments and the feedback sheet. She confirmed that she had not seen any other documents submitted by the Registrant and could not confirm whether the document that she had seen was a template.

22. Colleague A noted that she did not observe the lesson to which the form related. She was asked about a corridor conversation alleged to have taken place between herself and the Registrant. Colleague A agreed that they had discussed observing a lesson. It was suggested that during the discussion, the Registrant stated she would fill out the template for Colleague A to use in their next meeting. However, Colleague A did not recall that detail. She confirmed that there was no further contact between her and the Registrant after their email exchange in May 2022 which referenced the observation on 10 January 2022.

23. When questioned by the Panel, Colleague A described the normal process for completing an observation. She stated she would either sit in the classroom and observe or view a recording of the session. She stated she would then make notes and fill out the teaching observation session form.

24. Colleague A was asked whether she would sign the form before returning it to the student for submission. She explained that the form contained feedback, which would be discussed with the student before submission to allow for clarifications. However, the student, not Colleague A, would submit the form. She confirmed that she did not recall seeing a signed lesson plan from the Registrant.

25. Regarding signatures, Colleague A confirmed that the form did not have a designated section for a signature. She stated that she was not expected to sign it, as the form ended with a section on values and lacked a signature field.

FC

26. FC affirmed and adopted her witness statement as her evidence-in-chief. Her evidence, taken from her statement and live testimony, was as follows.

27. FC confirmed that she was appointed to investigate matters related to the Registrant’s submission of the observation form. She was asked about her investigation into the submission process via Moodle. FC confirmed that Moodle had an assessment area for submitting work.

28. FC was asked which documents were submitted by the Registrant on 26 May 2022. She stated that she believed a portfolio was submitted through Mahara, another part of the Moodle system. She recalled seeing observation forms but did not remember other parts of the portfolio. She believed they were Word documents but could not recall their format.

29. When asked about submission rules, FC explained that failure to submit any work would result in immediate failure. However, if the work was below the required standard, students could resubmit their papers and receive a capped mark. She stated that it was possible to pass on a second reassessment, with the passing mark set at 50%. She was unsure what would need to be submitted for a re-assessment, as this depended on the initial submission and could require either a partial or complete re-assessment.

30. FC confirmed that, during an interview, the Registrant had expressed a desire to submit her work-in-progress to receive feedback. As part of her investigation, FC did not discuss this matter with the colleagues that the Registrant claimed to have consulted.

31. FC confirmed that the Registrant had annotated her interview record in red following the interview.

32. FC was asked why she concluded that Colleague 1 created the template used for both observation forms. She explained that Colleague 1 marked from a set of criteria using a dropdown menu. She stated that given the fact that Colleague 1 had to provide feedback to many students, he had created a template. During the investigation interview, the Registrant stated that she used this observation template sheet as a template for her own use.

33. FC noted that the two separate observation documents submitted by the Registrant were nearly identical, with only minor word changes. She stated that it was unusual for an observer to be given a template for an observation, as this form was typically completed by the observer. She also noted that if an observation had not been conducted, it was unusual for the form to be submitted by the student.

34. When questioned by the Registrant, FC was asked to explain the university’s process for addressing concerns about a student’s work. She stated that the university would examine the work for issues such as plagiarism or dishonesty. If concerns were raised, the Academic Integrity Team would contact the student, who would have five days to respond. If no response was received, the matter would be referred for investigation. FC speculated that this case was handled by HR, as she was contacted by them.

35. FC agreed that, as a University Lecturer, the Registrant would be aware of the process for raising concerns with the Academic Conduct Officer (‘ACO’) and forwarding concerns relating to marking.

36. FC was asked whether a student who failed to attend an ACO meeting due to a genuine reason would be given the opportunity to reschedule. She agreed that this might be considered. The Registrant stated that she was on annual leave when the ACO sent the letter and did not receive it. FC stated she was not aware of this.

37. FC stated that if the issue involved a student, it might be possible to reschedule an ACO meeting. When asked whether supporting statements were usually considered, she stated that it would depend on the statement and the extenuating circumstances. FC was unsure whether annual leave would be considered but noted that this was more of an HR issue. She explained that students were responsible for checking their emails, but staff had the right to take pre-booked annual leave.

38. FC confirmed that the Registrant engaged positively with the investigation and attended the interview. She described the Registrant’s engagement as “useful” and “helpful”.

39. FC stated that she understood the matter to be a student issue because the Registrant was enrolled in a course at the time. She confirmed that the disciplinary process concerned the Registrant’s academic conduct as this was a student-related matter.

The Registrant

40. The Registrant gave evidence under Oath. In respect of Particular 1 of the Allegation, the Registrant stated that she was not aware that the observation had been sent in. She stated that when the Allegation was presented to her, she had no idea what had been done. The Registrant stated that she had made a clerical error in a student capacity. She noted that there was a lot going on in her personal and work life at the relevant time.

41. In respect of Particular 2a of the Allegation, the Registrant stated that she had never stated that Colleague A had seen her lesson. The Registrant stated that there was a lesson due to be conducted that Colleague A was going to observe on 10 January 2022. However, the Registrant stated that the lesson went ahead but Colleague A did not observe it. The Registrant stated that she has always said this. The Registrant stated that she wasn’t aware that the observation document had gone in, emphasising that it was a “clerical error”, and she had kept the observation template produced by Colleague 1 for her records and as a guide for the future.

42. In respect of Particular 2b of the Allegation, the Registrant stated that she has never said that Colleague A had seen her teaching. The Registrant stated that she was not dishonest and she had made a clerical error that should have been addressed as per the student University protocol and not as a misconduct issue.

43. The Registrant noted the evidence in respect of her personal history and her workplace environment and asked the Panel to consider this due to the pressure she was under at the time of the allegations.

44. The Registrant stated that the document was a copy and paste and had the wrong lesson plan on it and the wrong module code and title. She stated there was some dialogue in blue in which she explained this within the papers. The Registrant noted that there were spelling errors within the paperwork. The Registrant stated that with everything that was going on she didn’t know this was happening at this point. The Registrant stated that she had made a decision in the summer to leave the role, and she was actively seeking other employment. The Registrant stated that she did not know what was happening behind the scenes. The Registrant stated that she had no intention of completing the course.

45. The Registrant stated that she handed work in because she wanted some feedback on it. The Registrant stated that she hadn’t completed enough content to pass the course and in respect of the accusation that she was trying to gain a qualification, she stated that this was not true and she was looking for alternative employment.

46. The Registrant stated that the reason she didn’t respond to Colleague A’s email querying matters was because she had come straight back to teaching and marking with a non-supported heavy workload that was given to her, despite asking for help. The Registrant stated that she was told there was no capacity to provide support. The Registrant stated that she knew she wasn’t going to continue in that line of work and therefore there was no need for her to contact Colleague A. The Registrant stated that even if she decided to stay, she had arranged to retake the entire course the following year.

47. The Registrant stated that she didn’t know the observation with Colleague A’s name on it had been submitted, as it had gone over in a file attached to the observation by Colleague 1. The Registrant stated that she understood that she was responsible for submitting work, but she honestly didn’t know that it was there.

48. The Registrant stated the document had the wrong content from the lesson, the wrong module code, and as it went through Mahara, it didn’t go through Turn-It-In, so there was no chance of it being flagged up. The Registrant stated that this was her mistake; however, she stated that she did not do anything to gain a qualification or cheat.

49. In respect of the disciplinary hearing, the Registrant stated that this did not take place as she decided to resign. The Registrant referred to the bundle and asked the Panel to consider her reasons for resigning. The Registrant noted that she had difficulty gathering information for the hearing due to her computer being taken away. In respect of being confronted about the allegations, the Registrant stated that she wasn’t aware of what the initial meeting was about and she thought it was for the purpose of addressing her flexible working request. The Registrant stated that she was not given the option of bringing a union representative. The Registrant stated that she was in shock when confronted with the allegations in the meeting. She stated that she was escorted from the building and felt numb.

50. In respect of the document that was sent, the Registrant stated that this was a template that she was using, it was certainly not a Level 7 piece of work, and she would be ashamed to even submit it for feedback. The Registrant stated that she had previously discussed retaking the whole course and she submitted the documentation by mistake. The Registrant described how she gathered further information in relation to the allegations and attended the campus to retrieve information in the University IT department, which included discovering an email from the ACO which she had not opened as it was sent while she was on annual leave.

51. The Registrant noted that she co-operated with FC’s investigation and responded to her emails promptly. The Registrant stated that her response to the allegations had not changed throughout. The Registrant explained the background of the toxic and unsupportive work environment and the process of gaining the evidence. She discussed the matter with her husband, and he told her that he wanted her to resign. The Registrant stated that she had nothing to gain from falsifying anything. The Registrant stated that she had been in the education system since her 20s and already had a postgraduate certificate of education. She stated that she was a secondary school teacher for 2-3 years. The Registrant stated that she knows what cheating is and there would be no reason that she would put her job on the line when she had no intention of continuing in education.

52. The Registrant stated that she is currently in a very good role and is in a really supportive environment. The Registrant stated that she is well-respected in the workplace and doing well. The Registrant referred the Panel to her character references. She stated that she had been a Paramedic for 20 years without issue.

53. The Registrant was cross-examined. She confirmed that she started as a Lecturer in 2022 and the PGCAP was a desirable element of the role description. The Registrant confirmed it was a condition of taking the role that the PGCAP would be undertaken. The Registrant confirmed that the course was delivered online and alongside her teaching commitments and she had times when the diary was blocked out occasionally for online lessons. The Registrant confirmed that not everybody could attend every week due to work commitments.

54. The Registrant confirmed that the course required two teaching observations. The Registrant noted that her lecture was all about human factors and things that can influence decision-making. The Registrant confirmed that there were the two modules that she was module lead for and they were therefore her choices of lectures to get observed.

55. The Registrant confirmed that the teaching observations were important. She was asked what else she was required to submit as part of the course, and she confirmed that she also had to submit a piece of written work in order to pass. She confirmed that there may have been other things that she needed to do in order to pass, which she had not done.

56. The Registrant was asked about her “corridor conversation” with Colleague A and she confirmed that they had a conversation, and she had assisted Colleague A with her Level 7 and therefore she asked Colleague A to be an observer for her course on wound care. The Registrant confirmed that Colleague A agreed to this. The Registrant further confirmed that the lesson went ahead but Colleague A did not observe it. The Registrant confirmed that in the end, Colleague A did not attend due to a diary clash. The Registrant confirmed that this was the full extent of the agreement.

57. The Registrant was asked about any agreement with Colleague A about how the matter would be recorded. The Registrant stated that there was no agreement, but it would usually be face-to-face and Colleague A would have been in the room observing. The Registrant confirmed that there was no recording of her lesson on 10 January 2022.

58. The Registrant was asked about her emails to Colleague A on 26 May 2022, in which she attached the observation form. The Registrant confirmed that she should have attached a lesson plan on wound care. The Registrant stated that there was a miscommunication within the emails between herself and Colleague A. The Registrant agreed that the subject line of the email referenced the observation sheet.

59. The Registrant was asked whether she was trying to use Colleague A as an observer for the 10 January 2022 lesson and she stated that she was not. The Registrant stated that her lesson still went ahead and there was miscommunication in the emails that she wanted her to still be an observer. The Registrant agreed that she submitted her work on 27 May 2022, the day after the email exchange.

60. In respect of the observation form that the Registrant attached to the email, the Registrant stated that this was a template. It was put to the Registrant that it should have rung alarm bells that something was submitted but not observed. The Registrant stated that she never had any intention to deceive anyone. It was put to the Registrant that within an hour of her email exchange with Colleague A, she coincidentally sent the same observation form in as part of her assessment. The Registrant stated that she was not aware that she had done this. She stated that at that point she had made the decision to leave the University and as such she didn’t reply to Colleague A’s emails, as rearranging an observation would not be required.

61. The Registrant stated that she submitted the online observation to get an idea of how she would be marked and get a feel of how she was doing. The Registrant stated that she had failed the course already and she was going to do a retake the following year. It was put to the Registrant that this was inconsistent with her plan of leaving the University and the Registrant stated she had no desire to stay but she did not yet have another job secured. The Registrant stated she had made a personal decision to leave and that was her plan. The Registrant stated that she didn’t know how long it would take to get a job so she didn’t want to make it look like she wasn’t interested in the job role. The Registrant stated that she loved the job but didn’t like the environment that she was working in.

62. The Registrant was asked about her interview, in which she stated that the template was copied “word for word”. It was put to the Registrant that the document was not word for word and had in fact been altered to fit a potential observation of her lesson on wound care. It was put to the Registrant that there were references to wound care and the removal of reference to online sessions. In response, the Registrant stated that if she was going to falsify the document she would have done a better job of changing the document. The Registrant stated that she did not intend to falsify anything.

63. It was put to the Registrant that she altered the text to make it look like there was an observation and she disagreed with this and stated that these were her personal notes. The Registrant was asked why she would cut and paste personal notes into a template. The Registrant responded by saying the whole thing was her personal notes and should not have been sent.

64. The Registrant accepted that she deleted reference to online sessions and made three changes to the template document. The Registrant reiterated that she did not know that she had submitted the observation and they were her private notes. She stated that this was a clerical error which she was unaware of. The Registrant stated that she also submitted a needle skills plan which should not have been submitted. The Registrant stated that she had nothing to gain from her actions when it was put to her that she was seeking to submit an observation which hadn’t occurred.

65. It was put to the Registrant that she knew she had a duty to self-report. The Registrant stated that when she was hit with a suspension, she was in shock and told by her employer to wait until the fact-finding and that they would report matters to the HCPC. The Registrant stated that she had a lot of things to consider at the time in respect of the loss of her job and self-reporting was not her first thought. The Registrant stated that she knew she needed to contact the Regulator, but she was waiting for the fact-finding interview and waiting to see what was going to happen. The Registrant stated that she then resigned. The Registrant agreed she should have contacted the Regulator earlier.

66. It was put to the Registrant that she sought to falsify an observation and she submitted this dishonestly to mislead the University. The Registrant denied this.

67. The Registrant was asked questions by the Panel. She confirmed that she had had a conversation with a couple of colleagues around the fact that she was going to fail the course because of her content. The Registrant confirmed that she would be able to take the course the following year. The Registrant confirmed that if she submitted nothing she would fail; however, she noted that she was going to fail in any event.

68. The Registrant was asked why she submitted what she did if she was going to fail. The Registrant stated that she wanted to get some feedback. She explained that even if the work was brilliant, the mark would be capped at 50%. The Registrant confirmed that the wound care observation with Colleague A’s name on it should not have been submitted. The Registrant was asked what the purpose was of emailing Colleague A the day before the submission deadline requesting that she use her observation in her submission. The Registrant stated that this related to Colleague A observing in the future. She stated that although personally she had made her mind up to get another job, if she was still at the University in September when the course was due to start, she may decide to retake the course and would therefore need Colleague A to observe her.

69. The Registrant was asked about the changes that she made to the document which she described as a template. She stated that these were not big changes and they were to keep notes in her file. The Registrant was asked about the purpose of the changes and she confirmed she was using the document as a guide for herself.

70. The Registrant confirmed that she was already failing the course and stated there was no benefit to submitting the work.

Submissions

71. Mr Brady, on behalf of the HCPC, submitted that the Registrant gave clear evidence in respect of Particular 1 that the observation document was created in April or May 2022. He submitted that there could be a straightforward finding of fact in respect of this Allegation.

72. He submitted that, from that finding of fact, it must follow that the document was produced in either April or May. He submitted that the wounds lesson took place on 10 January 2022 and Colleague A did not attend in January 2022 to observe it. He noted that the lesson was not recorded. He submitted that the form was not created until sometime after the January session. He submitted that this would have been three or four months after.

73. In respect of the January 2022 session, Mr Brady submitted that Colleague A could not have observed this session and there had been significant changes to the form, including the change to include Colleague A’s name on the form. He noted that the date and time for the observation had changed and the module name. He noted that changes were made to the document to include the words ‘wound care’ instead of human factors, and in the bottom box on the response from the practitioner a section was inserted on the coagulation process for wound healing. Mr Brady also noted that all references to online elements of the session had been removed. Mr Brady submitted that the form was deliberately changed and the purpose of the changes was clear from the email exchange that then took place on 26 May 2022 between the Registrant and Colleague A.

74. Mr Brady referred to references made within the email of the Registrant stating that she had filled in the observation form for Colleague A. He stated that the Registrant agreed in cross-examination that the form was attached to the email. Mr Brady noted that the email exchange took place the day before the assessment deadline. He submitted that it was patently clear what the Registrant’s intention was, which was to use this form in respect of a lesson that had not been observed by Colleague A and to submit it as an observation.

75. Mr Brady submitted that Colleague A understandably questioned this approach as she had not observed the lesson for which the observation form was attached in relation to. Mr Brady then referred to the Registrant’s response email, which stated “we discussed in January, if I wrote it up I would send it to you and use you as an observer. Is this still ok?”. Mr Brady stated that this was a clear statement of intent. He submitted that the Registrant reaffirmed matters by then submitting the form with Colleague A as an observer. Mr Brady further noted the timing of the submission was less than 40 minutes after the discussion.

76. Mr Brady further submitted that the Registrant’s lack of response to Colleague A’s final email was also significant and suggested that the Registrant intentionally submitted the observation.

77. Mr Brady submitted that there was no reason for the Registrant to produce the observation form other than to submit it. He noted that the Registrant could not really explain the significant changes to the form and asked that the Panel reject her explanation that it was produced just for her notes. Mr Brady submitted that the document was clearly created to make it look as though Colleague A observed the lesson which took place in January 2022 in respect of wound care. Mr Brady noted in the Registrant’s initial response to the allegations that she had said the document was copied “word for word”, but it was not.

78. Mr Brady submitted that the Registrant’s defence was absurd and untenable and completely out of keeping with the email exchange with Colleague A. He submitted that the Registrant was inconsistent in respect of her intention to leave the University and therefore her requirement for feedback on the course.

79. Mr Brady submitted that the Registrant had clearly acted dishonestly and her actions and her email exchange with Colleague A clearly revealed that the submission of the observation was in the mind of the Registrant. He stated that the submission then took place within 40 minutes of the email exchange.

80. The Registrant addressed the Panel and stated that she had explained the reasons for her having no further emails with Colleague A as being due to teaching commitments. The Registrant stated that the submission that went in was supposed to be on human factors only. The Registrant stated the wound care observation was for her own personal notes.

81. The Registrant stated that the submission she was supposed to put in, which was human factors only, was not going to be marked so it would still would not have been a capped mark at 50%. The Registrant stated that she was always going to fail. She stated that she had failed the course regardless of what she put in.

82. The Registrant stated that the reason she wanted to leave was because of the toxic environment. However, there was no guarantee of what jobs were about, and although she was looking at jobs, the University were paying for the PGCAP. She stated that she had to make sure she stayed within the education system at that point.

83. The Registrant requested that the Panel review the bundle and look at her personal background and what it was like at the time of the events. The Registrant stated that her actions were a genuine mistake, which amounted to a clerical error and a failure to notify the HCPC.

84. The Registrant noted that the fitness to practise process was extremely stressful and she would not have got through it without her personal support network.

85. The Registrant stated that she had nothing to gain from the alleged act and she had always said that the observation never took place. She stated that her failure of the course was discussed and documented in an email.

86. The Registrant stated that she is a nice, honest person and found herself working in a toxic environment which contributed to her making an error. The Registrant stated that she submitted the form in error and has not denied that. She stated that if she was not under the additional pressure, she would not have made the error.

87. The Registrant stated that she was advised poorly at the time and this matter could have been resolved internally at the University had she not resigned. The Registrant stated that she felt let down by the University.

88. The Registrant stated that in hindsight she should have declared matters to the HCPC, but she was in a state of confusion and shock as to what was happening to her, and she apologised for this.

89. The Registrant emphasised that she had not acted with deliberate intent to deceive at any point and she remains a kind, caring, and competent Paramedic. The Registrant stated that she would very much like to continue her job, which she loves and is her livelihood.

Decision on Facts

90. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor. She referred the Panel to the principles found in the cases of Suddock v NMC [2015] EWHC 3612 (Admin), Dutta v GMC [2020] EWHC 1974 (Admin), Khan v GMC [2021] EWHC 374 (Admin), and Byrne v GMC [2021] EWHC 2237 (Admin) in relation to its approach to the assessment of witness evidence. She referred to the authority of Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67 in respect of dishonesty allegations.

91. The Panel considered each particular of the Allegation in turn. In reaching its decision, the Panel considered how the relevant witness evidence fitted with the non-contentious or agreed facts, contemporaneous documents, the inherent probability or improbability of any account of events, and any consistencies and inconsistencies.

Particular 1

92. In respect of Particular 1, the Panel noted that the Registrant made admissions during her evidence that she submitted the teaching practice observation form which included the date of 10 January 2022 in error.

93. The Panel noted that the assessment form which the Registrant agreed she had submitted had Colleague A’s name on it. Further, it had within it references to a wound care lesson which was conducted by the Registrant on 10 January 2022.

94. The Panel noted that it was an agreed fact between all the parties that the Registrant conducted a wound care lesson on 10 January 2022 and this lesson was not observed by Colleague A.

95. On the basis of the Registrant’s admission to submitting the form and given the content contained within the form, namely it containing the date of 10 January 2022, Colleague A’s name, the references to wound care, and the removal of references to online observations, the Panel was satisfied that on or around 26 May 2022, the Registrant submitted a teaching practice observation form for assessment which showed that Colleague A had observed her teaching on 10 January 2022 when this was not the case.

96. The Panel therefore found Particular 1 of the Allegation proved.

Particular 2a

97. In respect of Particular 2a, the Panel considered the agreed fact between the parties that Colleague A did not observe the Registrant’s teaching on 10 January 2022.

98. The Panel considered the Registrant’s explanation in respect of the teaching practice observation form relating to wound care. The Registrant stated that this was a template and was submitted as part of her assessment by mistake. The Panel was unclear from the Registrant’s explanation why such a template would be created. The Registrant, in her evidence, referred to the template being created for her own notes; however, the document included Colleague A’s name and the date of 10 January 2022 when the Registrant had accepted throughout this case that Colleague A did not observe her teaching on 10 January 2022.

99. The Panel also considered that the explanation offered by the Registrant was wholly inconsistent with the email exchange presented by the HCPC between the Registrant and Colleague A on 26 May 2022.

100. Within this email exchange the Registrant sent to Colleague A the teaching practice observation form which was dated 10 January 2022 and had Colleague A’s name on it. The Registrant wrote within the covering email as follows:

“Here is the observation sheet for my PGCAP I have filled it in for you , can you let me know if you are happy for me to use this.”

This was then questioned by Colleague A and the Registrant was asked:

“Apologies for questions - I just need some clarification and to check that I haven’t missed anything. Was this session observed by someone else? Is there a recording of the session available?”

The Registrant then responded:

“No, we discussed in January that If I wrote it up I would send it to you and use you as an observer. Is this still ok?”

101. The Panel considered that this email exchange demonstrated that the Registrant, prior to the submission of the document as part of her assessment, was aware that Colleague A had not observed her teaching on 10 January 2022.

102. Further, the Panel considered that the email exchange clearly demonstrated that it was the Registrant’s intention to submit the teaching practice observation form dated 10 January 2022 with Colleague A’s name as part of her assessment, despite the fact that Colleague A had not observed the assessment. The Panel considered that the Registrant’s actions in this regard were dishonest.

103. The Panel therefore found Particular 2a of the Allegation proved.

Particular 2b

104. Further, in respect of Particular 2b of the Allegation, the Panel did not accept the Registrant’s explanation that the email exchange was a miscommunication between Colleague A and herself. The email was entitled “observation sheet” and contained a reference to this document. The Panel did not accept the Registrant’s explanation that the email exchange should have attached a lesson plan instead of the observation document given the references to the observation sheet contained within it. Furthermore, the Panel considered that the Registrant’s intentions within the communications were clear.

105. The Panel considered that the Registrant went on to act upon the clear intentions expressed within the email exchange with Colleague A when, 40 minutes after the email exchange, she in fact formally submitted the teaching practice observation form on Moodle. The Panel considered that it was not a clerical error on the part of the Registrant but a deliberate act. The Panel concluded that the Registrant deliberately submitted the observation form despite being aware that Colleague A had not observed her teaching.

106. Based on the Panel’s conclusions above, the Panel considered that in all the circumstances, the Registrant had sought to misrepresent that Colleague A had observed her teaching on 10 January 2022.

107. The Panel considered that the email exchange provided clear evidence in respect of the Registrant’s intentions and the Panel rejected the Registrant’s explanation that this was a miscommunication.

108. In all the circumstances, the Panel found Particular 2b of the Allegation proved.

Particular 3

109. As set out above, the Panel found Particular 3 of the Allegation proved by way of the Registrant’s admission.

The reconvened hearing

110. The decision appearing above which explained the Panel’s decisions on the facts was handed down on 30 January 2025, which was the final day of the original listing of this case. There was then insufficient time for further stages to be considered and so it was necessary for the case to be adjourned part-heard. The Panel identified 18-20 June 2025 as dates when it was likely that the case could be relisted, and the Registrant confirmed that she would be available. The further dates of 18-20 June 2025 were subsequently confirmed by a formal Notice of Hearing sent on 11 February 2025.

111. On 4 June 2025, the Registrant confirmed that she would not be attending the hearing, explaining that decision as “due to A/L and the financial impact this will have”. Between sending this email and the reconvened hearing, the Registrant sent for the consideration of the Panel a document setting out her reflections (hereafter ‘the June reflective piece’).

112. At the commencement of the hearing on 18 June, the Panel decided whether it would be appropriate and fair to continue the hearing in the absence of the Registrant. The conclusion of the Panel was that it was appropriate and fair to continue. The Registrant neither applied for this reconvened hearing to be adjourned nor did she suggest that she would be minded to attend a hearing in the future were it not to proceed as listed. It followed that the Panel was unable to conclude that an adjournment would result in her attendance. Furthermore, in deciding whether it was fair to the Registrant to continue, the Panel noted that she had made her case plain by the June reflective piece. The Panel further considered the public interest and determined that it was in the interests of all parties to continue in the Registrant’s absence.

113. Having decided to continue with the hearing, the Panel informed Mr Brady that it proposed to consider the issues of misconduct and impairment of fitness to practise in one retirement, and for that reason would welcome his submissions on both issues.

114. Mr Brady invited the Panel to decide that the facts it had found proven amounted to misconduct. He submitted that there had been demonstrated and found by the Panel a clear intention to circumvent the requirements of the course on which the Registrant was enrolled. This, he submitted, was not just dishonesty in the context of the work of a Paramedic but, as it related to the ability to teach future Paramedics, went to the heart of the confidence that the public could reasonably expect that other Paramedics were properly qualified. In relation to impairment of fitness to practise, Mr Brady submitted that the June reflective piece revealed a complete lack of insight that should result in a finding of current impairment of fitness to practise.

Decision on Grounds

115. In view of the case that the Registrant had continued to advance by the June reflective piece, it was important that the Panel should restate its finding that the submission on 26 May 2022 of the observation form relating to teaching on 10 January 2022 was behaviour which was deliberate and dishonest.

116. In assessing the seriousness of its findings in relation to Particulars 1 and 2, the Panel did not overlook the fact that the Registrant’s working environment was challenging but, in the judgement of the Panel, whatever difficulties were presented to the Registrant, they could not excuse her deliberate and dishonest actions.

117. When the Panel considered whether its findings constituted breaches of the HCPC’s “Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics”, it concluded that there were breaches of Standard 9, which requires registrants to be honest and trustworthy in both their personal and professional behaviour. Specifically, the Panel’s findings touched upon Standards 9.1, 9.2, and 9.5, as the Registrant did not make sure that her conduct justified the public’s confidence in her, she was not honest with regard to an issue that related to qualifications, and she did not tell the HCPC as soon as possible that she had been suspended from her employment.

118. The Panel accepted the advice it received that it should not reach a finding of misconduct simply because it had found HCPC standards to have been breached; it was necessary for the seriousness of those breaches to be assessed in order to decide whether the threshold of misconduct had been reached. When the Panel made that assessment, it decided that the proven particulars, when viewed both individually and collectively, represented serious fallings short from the standards of behaviour expected. In the judgement of the Panel they would be regarded as deplorable by fellow Paramedics, by students who might be taught by the Registrant, and by members of the public.

119. The findings were properly to be regarded as misconduct.

Decision on Impairment

120. Having decided that the proven facts amounted to misconduct, the Panel went on to consider whether that misconduct is currently impairing the Registrant’s fitness to practise. The Panel heeded the advice it received and followed the guidance contained in the HCPTS Practice Note on “Fitness to Practise Impairment”. Accordingly, the Panel considered separately the personal components and public components of impairment.

121. In reaching its decisions, the Panel reminded itself of the evidence with which it had been provided. It had regard to the testimonials of JP and GS, both of whom stated that they believed the Registrant to be honest. It also considered the two reflective pieces submitted by the Registrant, that which was before the Panel at the time of the hearing in January 2025 and the recently provided June reflective piece.

122. When the Panel addressed the June reflective piece, it noted that it contained the statement, “the erroneous submissions. If it were to happen again I would be more diligent”. However, it was an inescapable fact that, taken as a whole, the document amounted to a re-statement of the Registrant’s case that the submission of the teaching practice observation was a clerical error, that there was no intention to deceive, and that it was not dishonest. It therefore advanced a case which was completely at odds with the Panel’s decision on the facts, which was handed down on 30 January 2025. The Panel did not question the Registrant’s right to advance a case and to stick to that case after the Panel had made it plain that it did not accept it. The Panel also accepted that the Registrant was not to be punished for continuing to advance that case. However, it was inevitable that maintaining a case that had been rejected would have a bearing on the issue of insight into past failings that had been identified.

123. When the Panel made its decision on the personal component of impairment of fitness to practise, it first considered whether there had been apology, remorse, or insight, factors that have relevance to an assessment of the risk of repetition. As already stated, by the June reflective piece it was clear that by maintaining her case that the issue was nothing more than a clerical error, the Registrant did not accept that she acted deliberately with the intention to deceive. The Registrant was also critical of the manner in which the University dealt with the matter, including the fact that the referral to the HCPC was made.

124. In the view of the Panel, there was no meaningful insight demonstrated by the Registrant and no meaningful remediation.

125. When a person does not accept that they have acted in a particular way in the past, there can be limited confidence that they will not act in a similar manner in the future. The Panel did not question the veracity of JP and GS that the Registrant had acted honestly when they had interacted with her, but the finding of the Panel was that there remains an appreciable risk that, were the Registrant to find herself in a demanding or challenging environment, she could act in a similar manner.

126. For this reason, the Panel found that the Registrant’s fitness to practise is impaired in respect of the personal component.

127. With regard to the public component, the Panel was satisfied that fair-minded members of the public, informed fellow professionals, and student Paramedics would all have their confidence in the Paramedic profession, and in the regulation of that profession, undermined were this matter to be overlooked. For that reason, a finding of current impairment of fitness to practise was required. It was also required to operate as a deterrent to other professionals who might otherwise think that they could act dishonestly and avoid professional censure.

128. The consequence of the fact that the established misconduct is currently impairing the Registrant’s fitness to practise is that the Allegation is well founded. Accordingly, the Panel must go on to consider the issue of sanction.

Decision on Sanction

129. After the Panel handed down its written determination explaining its decisions on misconduct and current impairment of fitness to practise, Mr Brady was allowed time to consider the document before making his submissions on sanction.

130. Mr Brady reminded the Panel of the HCPC Sanctions Policy. He submitted that there was a lack of insight, apology, and remediation, and he also suggested that it was unusual for a reflective piece to be provided which did not contain an apology. He submitted that the absence of insight which was apparent in January 2025 when the Registrant gave evidence before the Panel was still absent, as demonstrated by the June reflective piece. He submitted that the Panel’s finding of dishonesty would be a major factor in the sanction decision, and that dishonesty was a matter that would suggest a more serious sanction was appropriate. That apart, Mr Brady did not submit that the Panel should apply any particular sanction.

131. The Panel accepted the advice it received as to the approach it should adopt in reaching its decision on sanction. A sanction is not to be imposed to punish a registrant against whom a finding has been made. Rather, a sanction should only be imposed to the extent that it is required to protect the public, to maintain a proper degree of confidence in the registered profession and the regulation of it, and to declare proper professional standards. Any sanction imposed must be the least restrictive order that will address these proper sanction goals. Accordingly, in any given case the Panel must first ask itself whether the finding it has made requires the imposition of any sanction at all. If a sanction is required, then the available sanctions must be considered in an ascending order of gravity until one is reached that is sufficient to protect the public, maintain confidence, and declare proper professional standards. As the finding in the present case was one of misconduct, the entire sanction range up to and including striking off was available. These judgements were to be made applying the guidance contained in the HCPC Sanctions Policy. The Panel confirms that it followed this approach in reaching the decision about to be explained.

132. Before turning to the available sanction options, the Panel considered the features of the Panel’s findings in relation to the Allegation that would need to be reflected in its decision on sanction.

• With regard to Particulars 1 and 2, the University was entitled to impose the condition it did in relation to the submission of a teaching practice observation. In the view of the Panel, that requirement was clearly important given the need to be satisfied that student Paramedics would be competently taught. It follows that if, as the Registrant did, a deliberate attempt is made to circumvent that requirement, it is a very serious matter. The public has a legitimate interest to know that upon graduation, Paramedics will have been taught in a manner that has been rigorously monitored. Added to that is the issue of dishonesty. The importance of all health professionals being honest is not some abstract notion. Honesty is important because the public is entitled to have trust and confidence in those who attend upon and treat them when they are acutely vulnerable. If a health professional is demonstrated to have behaved dishonestly, trust and confidence will necessarily be diminished. In the present case, the Registrant behaved dishonestly in the past (which is a matter which bears upon her professional reputation) and, as a consequence of not facing up to what she had done in the past, is liable to behave in a similar manner in the future (which is a factor that bears not only on her reputation, but gives rise to the risk of future harm).

• So far as Particular 3 was concerned, the HCPC undertakes an important role in considering whether fitness to practise issues should be investigated. It can only undertake that task if it becomes aware of matters that potentially should be investigated. That is why all registrants are under an obligation to inform the HCPC straight away of matters that might give rise to the need to investigate, including, as happened in the present case, a suspension from employment decided upon by an employer. A failure to discharge this obligation is itself a serious matter.

133. Paragraphs 56 to 58 of the HCPC Sanctions Policy deal with cases of dishonesty. While the document understandably recognises that there are different forms and different degrees of dishonesty, dishonesty is categorised as a “serious case”, and therefore one that is likely to result in a more serious sanction. In the present case, the already serious case of dishonesty was aggravated by the absence of apology, insight, and remediation.

134. In favour of the Registrant, the Panel remembered the two positive testimonials submitted on her behalf, the fact that she found the circumstances in which she was working to be challenging, that it was not suggested that there had been any other regulatory findings against the Registrant, and that the case did not relate to clinical shortcomings. Furthermore, the Panel acknowledged that the Registrant admitted Particular 3 at the commencement of the hearing. However, as the Panel was reminded by the HCPC Sanctions Policy, matters of mitigation are likely to be of very much less significance in a case such as this where any action taken will be dictated by the need to protect the public than it might be in a case where punishment was the rationale for the action taken.

135. With these factors in mind, the Panel first asked itself whether the finding of misconduct based on Particulars 1 to 3, misconduct that is currently impairing the Registrant’s fitness to practise, required the imposition of any sanction. The clear answer to that question was that a sanction was required. To pass from the case without imposing a sanction would not provide any protection against the risk of repetition and it would not reflect the seriousness of the findings.

136. The Panel rejected the imposition of a caution order as an appropriate outcome. The present case did not fit any of the features suggested in paragraph 101 of the HCPC Sanctions Policy as being those which might result in a caution order. The breach was not relatively minor in nature, it could not be said that there was a low risk of repetition, the Registrant had not shown good insight, and she had not undertaken appropriate remediation.

137. Having rejected a caution order as appropriate, the Panel next addressed the question of whether a conditions of practice order should be imposed. In that regard it considered paragraph 106 of the HCPC Sanctions Policy. In the judgement of the Panel, even if the Registrant had the insight that it is suggested would be a feature of a case resulting in a conditions of practice order, there would be no conditions of practice that could be formulated to mitigate against the risk of recurrence.

138. The rejection of a conditions of practice order had the consequence that the Panel considered a suspension order. Paragraph 121 of the HCPC Sanctions Policy is in these terms:

“A suspension order is likely to be appropriate where there are serious concerns which cannot be reasonably addressed by a conditions of practice order, but which do not require the registrant to be struck off the Register. These types of cases will typically exhibit the following factors:

• the concerns represent a serious breach of the Standards of conduct, performance and ethics;

• the registrant has insight;
• the issues are unlikely to be repeated; and

• there is evidence to suggest the registrant is likely to be able to resolve or remedy their failings.”

139. When the Panel measured the present case against the factors suggested in paragraph 121, its conclusions were as follows:

• This was indeed a case that represented a serious breach of the HCPC “Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics”.

• For reasons already explained, the Registrant did not have insight. She continued to assert that what occurred was a clerical error. It was not an error. It was a deliberate and dishonest act to circumvent a requirement imposed by the University.

• It could not be said that the issue was unlikely to be repeated.

• There was no evidence to suggest that the Registrant would be likely to be willing or able to resolve or remedy her failings. Indeed, the available evidence was that she will not resolve or remedy them. It is now three years since she submitted the teaching practice form and she continues to advance the case that what occurred was a non-deliberate clerical error that was not dishonest. That was confirmed by the June reflective piece which she wrote some four months after receiving the Panel’s decision on the facts. There were no grounds for thinking that the Registrant would at this stage alter the attitude she had taken to what she did.

140. For the reasons set out in the immediately preceding paragraph, the Panel was of the view that this was not a case in which a suspension order appeared to be appropriate upon application of the guidance in the HCPC Sanctions Policy. Accordingly, the Panel asked itself whether a striking off order should be made. In the non-exhaustive list of types of case in paragraph 130 that might result in a striking off order, cases of dishonesty are included. Paragraph 131 is in these terms:

“A striking off order is likely to be appropriate where the nature and gravity of the concerns are such that any lesser sanction would be insufficient to protect the public, public confidence in the profession, and public confidence in the regulatory process. In particular where the registrant:

• lacks insight;

• continues to repeat the misconduct or, where a registrant has been suspended for two years continuously, fails to address a lack of competence; or

• is unwilling to resolve matters.”

141. So far as the bulleted features are concerned, this was a case in which the Registrant lacks insight and, on the available evidence, has demonstrated over a period of three years that she is unwilling to resolve matters. It followed that the guidance contained in paragraphs 130 and 131 strongly suggested that a striking off order would be appropriate in this case.

142. Recognising the serious consequences of a striking off order, the Panel hesitated before concluding that it should be ordered. To decide if it should indeed be ordered, the Panel again considered a suspension order. Having done so, the Panel concluded that for two reasons a suspension order would not be appropriate:

• The seriousness of the established dishonesty and the risks of repetition meant that the Registrant could not be permitted to return to practise as a Paramedic until the failing had been satisfactorily addressed. If there had been reasons for thinking that the failing had been addressed, or even that there was a realistic prospect that it would in the future be addressed, then it was possible that a suspension order might be appropriate until such time as a future reviewing panel could be satisfied that the risks of repetition had been abated. For reasons already explained, it was clear that the failing had not been addressed to date and there was no reason for thinking that the Registrant had any intention of addressing it in the future. A suspension order would therefore be of no utility; the position at the end of any period of suspension would be exactly as it is now.

• In addition to the above, the Panel was satisfied that in the circumstances presented, namely a very serious failing that had not been addressed for three years and would not in the future be addressed, nothing less than a striking off order would satisfy the public that dishonesty committed by a health professional will be viewed as fundamentally incompatible with continued professional registration.

143. The result of these decisions was that a striking off order must be made. Having concluded that no alternative would be appropriate, the Panel was satisfied that a striking off order was proportionate.

That the Registrar is directed to strike the name of Jennie Mortimer-Hampson from the Register on the date this Order comes into effect.

Interim Order Application

Application

1. After the Panel announced its decision that the substantive sanction would be that of a striking off order, Mr Brady applied for an interim suspension order for a period of 18 months to cover the appeal period. He submitted that the Panel’s decision made in relation to the substantive issues resulted in an interim order being necessary for protection of members of the public and being otherwise in the public interest. In submitting that the interim order should be made for the maximum period of 18 months, Mr Brady argued that if the Registrant did appeal the Panel’s decision, an appeal could take at least that length of time to be finally disposed of.

2. There were no submissions by or on behalf of the Registrant on this issue.

Decision

3. The Panel accepted the advice it received in relation to the application. It also had regard to the section entitled “Interim orders” between paragraphs 133 and 135 of the HCPC Sanctions Policy and the HCPTS Practice Note entitled “Interim Orders”. Accordingly, it was first required to decide whether it had jurisdiction to consider the application. If satisfied that it had jurisdiction, it must then decide whether the application should be decided in the absence of the Registrant. If the issue should be decided in the absence of the Registrant, the Panel must then consider whether there were risks that satisfied one or more of the three grounds that could justify the making of an interim order. Those grounds are: (i) that it is necessary for protection of members of the public; (ii) that it is otherwise in the public interest; and (iii) that it is in the interests of the registrant concerned. Furthermore, it was necessary to remember that the default position established by the legislation governing this process is that when a substantive sanction is imposed, there will be no restriction on a registrant’s ability to practise while their appeal rights remain extant. Accordingly, something more than the fact that a substantive sanction has been imposed is required to justify the making of an interim order. The Panel confirms that it followed this approach.

4. Included in the Notice of Hearing emails sent to the Registrant on 22 October 2024 and 11 February 2025, both contained the following paragraph: “Please note that if the Panel finds that it is necessary to do so, it may also impose an interim order (under Article 31 of the Health Professions Order 2001) at any stage during the hearing. An interim order suspends or restricts a registrant’s right to practise with immediate effect”. The Panel concluded that this afforded the Registrant the opportunity of making representations on the issue of whether an interim order should be made, and for that reason provided jurisdiction for the application to be considered by the Panel.

5. The Panel was satisfied that it was appropriate to decide the application in the absence of the Registrant; when such an application is made there is necessarily a degree of urgency in deciding the matter, the Registrant was informed in the Notices of Hearing that such an application might be made, and there was no reason to believe that the Registrant would wish to be heard on the matter if the Panel did not deal with it at the present time.

6. Whilst acknowledging the default position that there is no restriction on a registrant’s ability to practise while their appeal rights remain outstanding, the Panel concluded that in the present case an interim order was required. It was necessary for protection of members of the public and it was otherwise in the public interest for the same reasons explained by the Panel in its substantive sanction decision.

7. The Panel considered whether interim conditions of practice would be a sufficient restriction during the appeal period but concluded that, for the same reasons a substantive conditions of practice order was not appropriate, interim conditions of practice would not provide sufficient protection.

8. The Panel therefore concluded that an interim suspension order should be made.

9. The Panel decided that the Interim Suspension Order should be for the maximum period of 18 months. An order of that length was necessary because the final resolution of an appeal could well take 18 months if the Registrant appealed the Panel’s decision and Order. In the event that the Registrant did not appeal the decision and Order, the interim order would simply fall away when the time within which she could have commenced an appeal passes.

10. The Panel makes an Interim Suspension Order under Article 31(2) of the Health Professions Order 2001, the same being necessary to protect members of the public and being otherwise in the public interest.

11. This order will expire: (if no appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) upon the expiry of the period during which such an appeal could be made; (if an appeal is made against the Panel’s decision and Order) the final determination of that appeal, subject to a maximum period of 18 months.

History of Hearings for Jennie Mortimer-Hampson

Date	Panel	Hearing type	Outcomes / Status
18/06/2025	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Struck off
27/01/2025	Conduct and Competence Committee	Final Hearing	Adjourned part heard